|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2009 11:11:58 GMT
After all, violent men are also violent towards members of their own sex, aren't they? I actually looked into that last year. Those who are serial domestic abusers tend to only deliver violence on their partners, not on other men. Because their violence is based on their attitude to women. But then there are this other group - both male and female - who are just generally violent. I'm not sure what a "serial dometic abuser" is: someone who has beaten up more than one partner, perhaps? As for this type of offence being teh result of a man's attitude to women; what led you to form that conclusion? The (very interesting) report from RADAR in the OP challenges the idea that is the main cause of domestic violence. The report doesn't actually rule it out, but says that the largest factor that predisposes a woman to become a victim is her own violence.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 8, 2009 11:26:27 GMT
I think it's fairly obvious that somebody in the habit of being violent to a partner will be violent towards any partner, but it's a different matter to know how common that is. What tends to happen is that because this happens in some cases, it's treated as if true in all cases.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2009 12:30:19 GMT
I think it's fairly obvious that somebody in the habit of being violent to a partner will be violent towards any partner, but it's a different matter to know how common that is. What tends to happen is that because this happens in some cases, it's treated as if true in all cases. Is that obvious, though? It isn't to me; some people, men and women, who have had violent first marriages go on to form very happy and untroubled second marriages. On the other hand we are all familiar with the concept of the woman who has a chain of abusive partners, and we have been told this she chooses such men because of her upbringing, her own self esteem or whatever. But suppose there are other factors that are only just becoming recognised?
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 8, 2009 13:01:29 GMT
I suspect there are other factors. As to 'obvious', I did say 'habit'. I guess we all know about men like Frank Bruno capable of organised violence and a pussycat at home, and the other extreme of the nice little bloke who knocks the hell out of his wife - and the meek little woman who's a holy terror in the house - but I bet they are far outnumbered by the people who are pretty much the same at home as they are in public.
Obvious reasons I can see for being a serial victim are attractions for several different reasons to big tough men and alternatively being a pain in the arse oneself. It depends as well just what is meant by 'violence'. I think of it in the sense of a fight or a beating or repeated low-level assault. I wouldn't call a slap in the face once a year a violent relationship.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jul 8, 2009 17:33:23 GMT
I actually looked into that last year. Those who are serial domestic abusers tend to only deliver violence on their partners, not on other men. Because their violence is based on their attitude to women. But then there are this other group - both male and female - who are just generally violent. I'm not sure what a "serial dometic abuser" is: someone who has beaten up more than one partner, perhaps? As for this type of offence being teh result of a man's attitude to women; what led you to form that conclusion? The (very interesting) report from RADAR in the OP challenges the idea that is the main cause of domestic violence. The report doesn't actually rule it out, but says that the largest factor that predisposes a woman to become a victim is her own violence. Skylark, RADAR is just another pressure group trying to put their own agenda with regard to domestic violent into the public domain. Why give their take on these matters any more credence than Womens Aid (say)? A serial domestic abuser is a man who abuses every woman he is in a partnership with. And yes, you do get serial victims too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2009 21:39:00 GMT
Riotgrrl, I'm not giving RADAR any more credence than other pressure groups and I don't think there is any suggestion in this thread that I do; as I said in my first post, you can pick out facts and stats to support any argument!
But it is right, isn't it, to challenge what seems to have become accepted wisdom and ask for these things to be looked at again?
Presumably, your conclusion that serial abusers offend because of their attitude to women comes from original sources, not from reading the propoganda of a presure group?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jul 9, 2009 7:57:57 GMT
Riotgrrl, I'm not giving RADAR any more credence than other pressure groups and I don't think there is any suggestion in this thread that I do; as I said in my first post, you can pick out facts and stats to support any argument! But it is right, isn't it, to challenge what seems to have become accepted wisdom and ask for these things to be looked at again? Presumably, your conclusion that serial abusers offend because of their attitude to women comes from original sources, not from reading the propoganda of a presure group? Well yes, I think we both have open minds on this. I WAS surprised however that you said you had 'never' met the kind of man I am talking about. I kind of thought that everyone would be nodding along saying 'oh yeah, I knew a guy like that' It is personal observation and reading the literature that leads me to my theory. I truly believe there is a kind of domestic violence, male on female, that is different in its underlying nature from the kind of violence that violent men and women deliver on to their intimate partners. You can see it in action in less developed cultures where it is still considered perfectly acceptable for a man to hit his wife (but definitely not the other way round) as, by marrying her, he has taken ownership of her, just as it was in this country in the past. I suppose that is what people call 'patriarchy'.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2009 8:40:22 GMT
I've certainly met quite a few men who seem to treat women as domestic slaves, but to the best of my knowledge none of them have been violent. RADAR claims that such men are actually less likely to resort to physical attacks, but this seems to be based on rather limited research.
I've grown up with a deep suspicion of feminist groups, largely I think from having worked with a few activists who got quite hostile if anyone challenged their cherished opinions. So I've kind of made a point of looking at some of the sources on which Fawcett and others claim to base their findings, and the result can be quite illuminating.
I'm equally confident that RADAR is doing just the same, but it is quite refreshing to see a body that has set out to challenge the "myths" we have all been cajoled into believing.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jul 9, 2009 8:45:51 GMT
Not least because some of these myths are in themselves incredibly sexist, based as they are on this idea that women are non-violent, pacifist creatures who will only resort to force if they absolutely have to.
|
|